You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

The most severely misleading of our basic physical assumptions is a tacitly held *direct realism* and its way of *physical actualization* of future. It makes quantum mechanics (QM) incomprehensible and lets relativity theory impose a ‘block universe’ in spite of QM. Under *tautological modal realism*, which is based on trivial truths, QM appears naturally. Tautological modal realism belongs to the fundamental theory of totality by definition. Indeterminism emerges inside determined totality. Adding special relativity, demands Everett relativity, which conceivably could have become obvious to Einstein almost a century ago, if he had only further doubted his brand of realism. None of this is yet QM! Wheeler’s “utterly simple idea” demands certain correlations between alternative possibilities, namely those that force *modal realism* into physics; this is the core of QM. Actualization cannot be contained and spreads to all possible ‘worlds’. Visually intuitive models can illustrate these concepts, much like Minkowski diagrams resolve the twin paradox. Apparent non-locality in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox is suddenly as simple as the fact that twins have different ages after they aged differently (on separate space-time paths). With QM becoming self-evident, later generations, as usual, hardly grasp what the hang-up was, because they utilize improved language. This generally defines paradigm shifts, which can never be consistently expressed in the previous terminology. However, this is especially relevant today: With realism being suspect, fundamental physics is mainly (not merely) a description (of itself, not presupposed reality). Wittgenstein’s core insight is crucial; universal limits of language limit the universe.

Sascha Vongehr wrote: "Special relativity already shatters the classical past into a collection of possible past light cones, which each are an observer's determined past. Assuming otherwise implies either emergent relativity in an ether or a pre-determined block universe..."

Assuming otherwise does not imply anything like that. If the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is correct, the only alternative to special relativity is Newton's emission theory of light:

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

To the best of my imperfect knowledge, this is the only recorded comment or commentary by LW directly in re: QM. It feels like it's saying much the same thing as Anton Zeilinger's "Photons are clicks in photon counters." --:

"The views of modern physicists (Eddington) tally with mine completely, when they say that the signs in their equations no longer have 'meanings', and that physics cannot attain to such meanings but must stay put at the signs. But they don't see that these signs have meaning in as much as -- and only in as much as -- immediately observable phenomena (such as points of light) do or do not correspond to them.

"A phenomenon isn't a symptom of something else: it is the reality. A phenomenon isn't a symptom of something else which alone makes the proposition true or false: it itself is what verifies the proposition." -- Philosophical Remarks, pp 282-3 (1929-30)

Allow me to invite you to add comments and questions to the Science2.0 announcement of this essay, titled: "Wheeler's Utterly Simple Idea that Demands the Quantum". Due to the difficult nature of the essay, there will be a FAQ in response to reader questions and likely dedicated articles about frequently misunderstood aspects (e.g. likely on "do you 'believe' in many worlds?" or "where is Popper's falsification?" ...) linked from there. I take serious comments seriously in order to improve the accessibility of my work to a wider audience. Thank you sincerely for your help.

S. Vongehr

Author Sascha Vongehr replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 12:43 GMT

Dear Readers!

After analyzing your comments below, I decided against a FAQ for now and rather write several articles. The essay contest is about what basic physical assumption is wrong, but having the essay therefore focus on what is wrong (physical actualization of future) obscures somewhat the derivation. Thus, many commentators focused on the mere tautological start, which is admittedly not sufficient to arrive at Wheeler's "utterly simple idea". The following article summarizes the 'tautological modal realism to QM' steps super succinctly and then explains the indeterminism that is vital to get Everett relativity from Einstein relativity via turning around Popper's proof:

Sascha, there is actually *nothing* in Wittgenstein's philosophy that would allow you to arrive at Wheeler's "utterly simple idea," because in Wittgenstein there is no physics. Wheeler, OTOH, is all about physics.

and look for the post in the list. Not trying to spam - I will discuss comments seriously there and will ensure a moderated thread.

Thank you.

S. Vongehr

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 04:49 GMT

Sascha Vongehr wrote: "I will discuss comments seriously there and will ensure a moderated thread."

And you will be the moderator? Wise decision! Bravo! Now you have greater chances of winning the contest.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

post approved

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 15:40 GMT

Sascha,

"The most severely misleading of our basic physical assumptions is a tacitly held direct realism and its way of physical actualization of future."

Really? Who was misled by that assumption? Most scientists I know tacitly hold with metaphysical realism as described by Popper and other rationalist philosophers of science. Certainly not with Wittgenstein's philosophy.

Perhaps you would like to read my essay. Wheeler plays a prominent role. So do you and Amazing Randi.

(Please don't invite me to your blog -- you've already deleted everything on there that I had to say.)

The overall picture I get about your description of tautological modal realism is that we would expect the most fundamental theory of nature to describe it in its totality, and that this implies articulating all possible alternatives into which the parts of nature can evolve to in the next instant,...

The overall picture I get about your description of tautological modal realism is that we would expect the most fundamental theory of nature to describe it in its totality, and that this implies articulating all possible alternatives into which the parts of nature can evolve to in the next instant, and furthermore, that these alternatives are treated equivalently with respect to such a theory, and finally, that because there is nothing else to compare the totality to, it can only be compared to itself, and hence its description becomes tautological.

Your argument then would be that since QM already contains some of these features it may be close to, or perhaps even already be, our most fundamental description of nature. So for someone who has adopted the tautological modal realism perspective, Quantum mechanics should appear natural, if not even tautological, and the assumption that QM is "strange" is wrong.

Although I find your argument quite ingenious, I seriously doubt that many people will be convinced by it to regard QM as "natural" (unless, by virtue of becoming so familiar with the theory, it no longer triggers their sense of wonder).

The reason why I doubt this is simple: Surely someone before QM was developed should have developed intuitions in line with tautological modal realism, and been filled with puzzlement that measurements on objects up until then yielded definite results (within the accuracy and precision then available), and they would have been disturbed about the absence of observable superposition. I would be amazed if such a person existed. Moreover, from what little I understand about tautological modal realism (if I even understood it at all) I don't see why it should not lead us to expect to observe macroscopic superposition phenomena (not necessarily due to quantum mechanics)? Should it not lead us to expect to observe superpositions of gravity fields at energy scales which are accessible to us, for example? If we adopt this worldview, then, it seems to me, it would be inconsistent that we emphasize how well it fits one set of our observations but not emphasize how poorly it fits another.

I'd like to emphasize that I am not suggesting in any manner that QM is wrong or not a fundamental description of nature. My point is, rather, that adopting this type of worldview post hoc seems to me akin to a form of rationalization.

I accept that quantum mechanics is correct and fundamental, but that does not stop me from trying to understand what the origin of its puzzling features is. Some of my professors have told me that "why" questions are not the kind with which physicists are really concerned, but I strongly disagree. We have to keep asking "why" if we want to maintain any hope of gaining deeper insights into nature. Adopting a worldview which keeps me from asking "why" seems counterproductive. Indeed, it was because I kept asking why that I believe I made any progress in my own attempts at trying to 'understand' quantum mechanics.

The previous commenters have painted a picture of someone who does not take criticism well, but, not having had any prior interactions with you, I like to believe that when faced with an attempt at respectful, thoughtful and constructive criticism, you will receive it in the spirit in which it was given, namely that we can benefit and learn from an exchange of each other's perspectives, even if they sometimes disagree.

Thank you for your on topic comment. Do not be confused by certain other commenters - I have once outed a pseudo-scientist who cheated his way through academia and his friends are trying to get back at me - welcome to the internet. As I said above, especially on my science column, serious commenters are taken very seriously. To your comments:

Thank you for your on topic comment. Do not be confused by certain other commenters - I have once outed a pseudo-scientist who cheated his way through academia and his friends are trying to get back at me - welcome to the internet. As I said above, especially on my science column, serious commenters are taken very seriously. To your comments:

"we would expect the most fundamental theory of nature to describe it in its totality"

This is not about us expecting, but it being so by definition ("most fundamental"). Expectation is to do with empirical input, but a tautology is true regardless in which universe you happen to find yourself in (QM is where all possible universes "come from").

"Your argument then would be that since QM already contains some of these features"

"Although I find your argument quite ingenious, I seriously doubt that many people will be convinced by it to regard QM as "natural""

This is because you left out most of the argument. One of the main points is that tautological modal realism is NOT yet QM. You need to add special relativity in order to then come to Wheeler's "utterly simple idea that demands the quantum". Before that, many worlds are not QM.

"Surely someone before QM was developed should have developed intuitions in line with tautological modal realism"

Precisely! For thousands of years there have been people for who "possibilism" was self-evident.

"would have been disturbed about the absence of observable superposition."

No - superposition needs QM! The latter comes natural after special relativity is properly understood. Tautological modal realism is just as tautological in a world where there would be classical probabilities (that do not violate the Bell inequality).

"I accept that quantum mechanics is correct and fundamental"

I do not exclude 'further facts' like Bell's fifth position or gravity induced non-linearities (e.g. Diosi-Penrose).

"We have to keep asking "why" if we want to maintain any hope of gaining deeper insights into nature."

The question now is, for example, why do the correlations between alternative worlds lead to Born probabilities rather than stronger or less severe violations of the Bell inequality. This will likely be answered via David Deutsch's ideas hitting Relational Quantum Mechanics as applied to EPR.

You said: "This is not about us expecting, but it being so by definition ("most fundamental")."

It appears to me that we have different perspectives on what might constitute a most fundamental description of nature. However, it is incumbent upon me to explain the difference because I think your view...

You said: "This is not about us expecting, but it being so by definition ("most fundamental")."

It appears to me that we have different perspectives on what might constitute a most fundamental description of nature. However, it is incumbent upon me to explain the difference because I think your view is more in line with a general consensus view whereas mine is not.

In my opinion, the most fundamental description of nature transcends what would normally be called a "theory of nature" because it will contain regions in its domain that are in principle observationally inaccessible to us, but perhaps not to other kinds of observers, so that our description of those regions is really metaphysical, whereas to other kinds of observers they might well be part of physics (and our physics might be their metaphysics). You may think of I am referring to the many-worlds hypothesis but that is not the case. It refers to something more similar to the inaccessibility of information about the interior of black holes to us, but I'd like to emphasize that my conception of those domains is much more general than that. It just so happens that my essay in this contest contains a more detailed explanation, so if you are interested in finding out more details, I invite you to take at look at it, and especially the appendix, which outlines a worldview that is quite different from that almost universally held today.

Getting back to your comment, from my perspective it is not so "by definition" because you first need to specify what you mean by "fundamental theory of nature". Do you mean a framework which describes that aspect of nature describable by us just in terms of physics? Then I disagree, because that is, in my opinion, not the whole part of the story and therefore cannot by definition refer to the "totality" of nature. Do you mean the by "fundamental theory of nature" all aspects of nature which could be described by any kind of hypothetical observer whatsoever? Then yes, by definition it describes it in "totality" but note, then you have adopted a point of view in which such a description includes both physical and metaphysical regions and transcends what we normally would call a "fundamental theory of nature".

You said "No, statistical mechanics already does (all configurations in phase space)."

Yes but phase space is totally different from Hilbert space. It seems to me that you cannot just pick and choose which "space" you wish to apply your philosophical principles to, otherwise your principles risk becoming either internally inconsistent or vacuous. Phase space is well compatible with classical physics, quantum superposition is not. My understanding of your paper was that its goal was to try to help show the reader a perspective in which quantum mechanics seems natural. A perspective in which "phase" space seems natural falls short of this because it already seems natural to a classical physicist.

You said: "This is because you left out most of the argument."

Yes, indeed I did. That is because I could not avoid leaving out something out of your argument without reproducing almost your entire paper, I had to make hard choices and pick the points that seemed the most salient to me.

You said: "One of the main points is that tautological modal realism is NOT yet QM."

Actually, I thought that was one of the points I did (implicitly) include by the statement "...since QM already contains some of these features.." (as opposed to, say, "since QM is implied by this...")

You said: "You need to add special relativity in order to then come to Wheeler's "utterly simple idea that demands the quantum". "

Allow me to express skepticism at the idea that adding one counter-intuitive idea to another in the manner you describe makes the whole more intuitive (I suppose it is possible, but I am skeptical). Also, I did not come away with a clear idea of what Wheeler's idea was, I wished your essay had been clearer on that.

You said: "Precisely! For thousands of years there have been people for who "possibilism" was self-evident."

Ah, thank you for clarifying this, so I stand corrected on this point.

You said: "I do not exclude 'further facts' like Bell's fifth position or gravity induced non-linearities (e.g. Diosi-Penrose)."

When I said I accept QM as fundamental this is what I meant more precisely: I do not believe that any future theory that replaces QM will show that QM was wrong, but it might shed insight into how QM fits into our total worldview. In other words, I meant that QM is fundamental (=won't be shown to be wrong) in its domain, not "fundamental" in the sense that it is already the final theory that covers its domain. I regret that I did not express myself clearly.

You said: "The question now is, for example, why do the correlations between alternative worlds lead to Born probabilities rather than stronger or less severe violations of the Bell inequality. This will likely be answered via David Deutsch's ideas hitting Relational Quantum Mechanics as applied to EPR."

As I have my own ideas on this, it is only natural that I may disagree, but that's okay, since this is still at the edge of our knowledge. We still have room to disagree.

"It appears to me that we have different perspectives on what might constitute a most fundamental description of nature."

With realism being questionable, the fundamental description describes itself rather than a presupposed reality (see introduction). "Nature" must emerge in that description. This is more fundamental than whether there is...

"It appears to me that we have different perspectives on what might constitute a most fundamental description of nature."

With realism being questionable, the fundamental description describes itself rather than a presupposed reality (see introduction). "Nature" must emerge in that description. This is more fundamental than whether there is black hole holography in a universe [not "world"(!)] or in all possible ones. If the latter, it will be obvious from the fundamental description. What I am talking about cannot be any other way, not because of nature but because of the fact that the fundamental description is a *description*.

"from my perspective it is not so "by definition" because you first need to specify what you mean by "fundamental theory of nature""

Did I even use "of nature"? (That would be a mistake.) If my definitions are inconsistent, please tell us how so. As far as I can see, it is "by definition", because I defined it that way.

"Yes but phase space is totally different from Hilbert space."

I did not write about Hilbert space. If there are non-linearities, Hilbert space is in trouble.

The most important insights, for example the "eliminativism" of D. Dennett, are refused as vacuous, as I explicitly wrote (introduction). Tautologies are empirically empty. Consistency is important.

"Allow me to express skepticism at the idea that adding one counter-intuitive idea to another in the manner you describe makes the whole more intuitive"

Special relativity as introduced via Minkowski diagrams and stressing the light cone structure, i.e. the fact that it reflects tautological modal realism, which just like special relativity does, also includes all possible determined pasts (worlds) of observers, is very intuitive.

"I did not come away with a clear idea of what Wheeler's idea was"

He did not have that idea, he predicted that there must be one. The idea is in the conclusion where it refers to the previous paragraphs by number (I believe it was paragraphs 10 and 13).

I hope this helps. [BTW, I allowed myself to put your comment also on my science2.0 column. It may get very crowded here with total nonsense from certain extremely unpleasant people that Perimeter Institute kicked out and Oxford University also refuses to have any affiliation with (see above). This repels many serious people, but on my column, your comments will be read]

I just visited your column. While I don't mind that you put my comment there, I think it will be inevitable before one of your regular readers googles my name and as a result will find something about me that they will notify you about, and I'd prefer you find out from me.

About 10 years ago, as I was preparing to pursue a master in public health degree,...

I just visited your column. While I don't mind that you put my comment there, I think it will be inevitable before one of your regular readers googles my name and as a result will find something about me that they will notify you about, and I'd prefer you find out from me.

About 10 years ago, as I was preparing to pursue a master in public health degree, having already graduated from pharmacy school, I had an epiphany about a fundamental aspect of nature. Physics not being my field, I hesitated to do anything about this, but after some time I realized that I had a strong inner urge to find out whether the insight from that epiphany had any merit or not.

I broke off my MPH studies halfway and decided to learn physics. Because some of the initial glimpses of what I was beginning to understand about quantum mechanism seemed to match the insight, I became very enthusiastic. In a fit of overactive enthusiasm, I applied to the JREF Million Dollar challenge, claiming that I had an epiphany which would transform our understanding of quantum mechanics. Because I do not know the "cause" of my epiphany, and frankly do not believe in supernatural phenomena, I framed my claim in accordance with my convictions by saying that it would be less likely for a layperson with no prior training to have such a fundamental insight than for a genuine psychic event to occur. In order to not be disqualified from the challenge, however, I expressed this very subtly.

Given that you appear to hold the JREF in very high esteem, having founded your own quantum version of their challenge (which, BTW I believe is impossible to beat), I think it is fair for me to believe that this new information will strongly color your perception of me and make it more likely for you to discount anything else I say.

However, I request that you hear the rest of the story.

At the time, none of the applications were online, that came later. While I was not happy when they did post my application without my consent or permission and prefaced it by calling me "psychic Einstein", I decided to ignore them and continue with my studies. I continued to take almost all the courses a physics major would take (on a part-time basis) as well as additional philosophy of physics and mathematics courses at the University of Michigan, while working full-time as a pharmacist.

Seriously studying physics can be a humbling experience. However, I was determined to honestly try to find out if what I seemed to have stumbled upon had any merit. In particular, I was ready to admit any mistake I had made, and unfortunately I made lots of them. The upside of making a mistake, however, is that one can learn from it, and as a result, one knows more than before the mistake was made.

Last year, I finally felt ready (after 7 years) to make the details of my idea public. I already had ongoing discussions with a couple of my professors (one in the physics and the other in the philosophy department) and after they understood the details of my idea they gave me permission to deposit the relevant papers in Deep Blue, the University of Michigan's repository.

I have since participated in some conferences, and observed that the JREF's action appears to be seriously hurting my efforts to achieve a meaningful scientific exchange with others. For instance, I participated last year at a conference at Perimeter, giving a poster presentation about my framework, and by the second day, the JREF's post upon googling my name jumped from 13th to 1st position, and I could tell that people were avoiding me. Also, when I sent in my paper for publication, the chief editor, no doubt having googled me after seeing some unorthodox ideas in the paper, felt fit to write me back saying that I did not understand quantum mechanics.

Before you write me off as a crackpot or a delusional person, too, I'd like to ask that you consider the evidence, which you can check for yourself:

-I have never compared myself to Einstein, they did. I only claimed that I had an epiphany, which I truthfully did, and it has changed the course of my life

-My actual claim does not contain a psychic claim but a comparison of the likelihood of what happened to me to an actual psychic event (but of course, after one sees "psychic Einstein" who is going to check?)

-Finally, the content of my idea. Before you make any judgement about its merit, why not examine the evidence? 3 months ago, I gave a talk about my framework at the Vaxjo conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics in which I attempted to give an overview and I believe this is the best way to familiarize someone who knows nothing about it. You will find that the central idea is so simple that a layperson with no knowledge about quantum mechanics could have stumbled on it (although that was not my initial epiphany, however it directly led to that central idea). And if during the talk I said anything that contradicts our current knowledge about quantum mechanics, I will be the first to admit that I was mistaken.

You can find the talk here: http://youtu.be/GurBISsM3

I have throughout the entire time I have been studying physics been eager to be honest with myself and readily admit when I make a mistake. I believe this is what distinguishes what many call a 'crackpot' from somebody who is pursuing an unorthodox idea in a scientific fashion. I believe that even someone in academia can be a crackpot if they refuse to admit that they have made a mistake in their endeavor.

I believe I can say that my professors know me as a hardworking and serious but also very curious student and hope you take the evidence I presented into account before judging me.

Interesting comment by somebody who personally got a drawing from Wheeler about what may be the utterly simple idea, perhaps reformulated by Anton Zeilinger: First Hand Account

The essay contains both via rejection of actualization and emergent indeterminism [Item (7)], respectively, thus they are not yet the "utterly simple idea" that demands the core of QM: My Reply

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 12:20 GMT

Sascha, if you really are interested in engaging on Wittgenstein's role in the philosophy of logic and mathematics with one who understands it -- I will be more than happy to accommodate. Wittgenstein plays no significant role in the philosophy of science, however, and I challenge you to produce one credible source that successfully argues so.

As it is, you lay false premise upon false premise, to reach your false conclusions. For example, "I say that the alternatives (worlds) physically match up (one Alice per Bob) and that this is the 'interaction' between alternatives (worlds) that is the very core of QM." No, that is the core of your belief about what is at the core of QM. There is no physical interaction among alternative worlds, else there would be no reason to label them "alternative."

The physics core of QM is quite simple and straightforward: A continuously variable classical quantity, such as angular momentum, is observed to take discrete measured values restricted to simple rational numbers.

Wittgenstein's role is ever more re-appreciated, see for example the pioneers of Relational Quantum Mechanics that resolved EPR (citations in the essay). One needs to understand the core of Wittgenstein, not focus on his choice of words at the time or suchlike. I will explain this once more differently in the follow-up article to Indeterminism Comes Before QM.

The core of QM is neither mere quantization (such can be topological), nor uncertainty (uncertainty can even emerge from hot classical Einstein-ethers), but strictly the correlations, like for example the Bell inequality violating ones, that are stronger than classically possible (simply because classically, alternatives are "dead"; they simply do not "interact" because they do not "exist").

What you write here, namely that the core is a "continuously variable classical quantity, such as angular momentum, ..." is obviously neither Wheeler's "utterly simple idea that *demands* the quantum" (since you merely postulate quantization), nor is it clear that such cannot emerge from a classical substrate, nor can you seriously hold the opinion that the most fundamental and natural description of QM starts by first assuming classical continuous stuff. Classical physics emerges from QM, not the other way around.

Thank you for your comment

Sascha

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 17:28 GMT

"Classical physics emerges from QM, not the other way around."

Of course, you cannot support this statement in any objective way. EPR-Bell is by strictly classical parameters, for one thing -- and for another, so are Wheeler's ideas. What the experimental violation of Bell's inequality explicitly shows, is that classical physics *cannot* emerge from quantum mechanical rules.

Problem is, you are so convinced that physic is an observer-created -- as opposed to observer-participatory, which is Wheeler's interpretation of the covariance inherent in relativity -- that you ignore the physics entirely, in favor of the language analysis that attends anti-rationalist philosophy.

I am fascinated with how close our views are on some fundamental aspects. I may not agree with every aspect of your views and interpretations about QM, but our main motivations and ideals are the same. I’ve been precisely discussing on the relevance of language for physics and the importance of the meaning you associate to your worlds. I also firmly believe that QM is that fundamental, and on this domain language plays a major role.

I deeply agree that the expressiveness of our language dictates what we can describe and also with Wittgenstein’s similar statement. Actually, I say almost the same thing on my essay. Your Idea that most of fundamental statements are not even wrong but meaningless is also something we share in common. In fact, I defend the thesis that the fundamental theories defines (for a subset of natural language ) which statements are or not meaningful. In my essay I argue that the interpretation of a theory should connect the math of the theory with the language, and so, a meaningful statement is one we can translate into a mathematical statement.

I really think that our fundamental theories are not simply right or wrong, but that they really make sense or not. I agree that most of the problems at this level are actually because there are meaningless statements. Your ideas helped me understanding mines. If we could simply state with clarity most of this fundamental problems, the problem would be dissolved. The notion of closed theory I discuss on my essay

Yes, indeed, there are similarities between our views. Your essay suffers more severely from the problem that my essay also has, and that all on-topic essays here must have, because the contest specifically asks to write about the wrong, which is fundamentally the meaningless, therefore we are forced to write precisely about what Wittgenstein taught us to be silent about. I was accutely aware of this and spend a darn long time to revise over and over and over again in order to be meaningful nevertheless.

I suggest: Forget about the wrong, toss it all out, and provide what you call a closed theory. I know, it is hard; academic constraints force us to take sides in the ontic vs. epistemic debate or at least discuss that in order to preempt reviewers' complaints about that one is not aware of the "relevant" literature (instead of simply not confusing with the irrelevant). But life is short, so I encourage you. Keep me updated.

Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT

That is precisely what I think, but as you said clearly, there are several constraints. I’ve been trying to provide a closed theory, but then If I don’t enter into this epistemic-ontic debate they say that I’m not aware of the literature or that I’m not doing something new. For me this debate is really irrelevant, if not meaningless. You may find my arXiv paper interesting, “On the nature of reality”. And you may realize that it contains some of Wittgenstein’s ideas.

You can express with clarity something I believe is the greatest problem of contemporary fundamental physics. But your point is often overlooked. But it is time to change this. I hope we could keep sharing ideas. We have close views, and the relevance of my work is related with how many people can see the importance of your ideas.

I had a look at your arXiv paper already before I wrote the comment above, and my criticism was at both. Nobody has time to read carefully, so if you on top write much about what is wrong, your own description cannot be noticed. "On the nature of reality" is not a title I would usually look at either. If you truly think you "get it", act it. You would not write a title like that if you refused the meaningless. Simply construct your closed description, do not defend against the meaningless, proceed until you have a novel result of which you are sure it is not just a crackpot's rabbit hole. Don't let the fear of competition pressure you down a rabbit hole. If you really "get it", you already know there is little competition, because anything that even potentially smells "postmodern" is so utterly refused by physicists and philosophers of physics, even the anti-realist ones, you can leisurely walk and still be first to discover some of what waits on the next level (if being first among 10^9 primates who don't give a moist rodent's posterior is a desire you suffer from - a common affliction among us).

So you suggest I should simply write my closed theory and do not discuss what is wrong or meaningless? And what kind of title do you suggest? And why people will use my theory if they cannot see what is wrong (or meaningless) on the old theories? That’s my problem. I believe I have the solution, but I think most cannot see the problem it solves.

"And why people will use my theory if they cannot see what is wrong (or meaningless) on the old theories?"

Because they simply see that it is useful if you make it useful, and after that they may rationalize automatically that the old theories are somehow wrong even if they never really see why. All else not only fails due to humans' time constraints and evolved nature as believers and selective perceivers and suppreme rationalizers, but also wastes your own time on defending against what will likely go away anyway. Look - admiting error is almost pathological given the natural selection of defensive supporting of one's own ideas, but there is a young generation of basically already technology enhanced kids already integrating into virtual reality. It may well just take another ten years and they are the new scientists and find your ideas self-evident. By then you either are still discussing endlessly with the old guys or you have developed something the new guys really appreciate.

Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT

Dear Sascha,

You are indeed right. I’ll be soon writing a new paper on the nature of logic in which I’ll extend my ideas do develop the logic of the quantum world. It will be a propositional, modal and epistemic logic, that is, you can talk about truth, necessity, possibility and knowledge. I’ll try to follow a different approach, something like what you said. I hope we could keep sharing ideas besides this contest. Your ideas may help me. Can you give me your email? And if you haven’t, please rate my essay…

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

As a follower of Scientific Blogging, I read also your "Help Create The Most Powerful FQXi Essay : Fall of Direct realism" and " Of Quantum Non-Locality And Green Cheese Moons In Many Worlds".

There is one sentence that intrigues me very much :

"Totality does not have a future, it includes ALL futures" I should add and PASTS. It intrigues me because in "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" my Total Simultaneity is going in the same direction.

"The present situationis preceisely all that is presented now", is in line with what I call the "Subjective Simultaneity Sphere". My TS is not the "Godly" external randomness, nor the fully "described" randomness it is the AVAILABILITY of infinite probabilities.

I have read your paper - and I am not quite sure, that Wittgenstein's core insight is described resp. interpreted correctly. Obviously Wittgenstein was touched by a deeper truth, which seemed to him unassailable and definitive. I would even say that Wittgenstein himself did not really understand the truth he had found.

I have read your paper - and I am not quite sure, that Wittgenstein's core insight is described resp. interpreted correctly. Obviously Wittgenstein was touched by a deeper truth, which seemed to him unassailable and definitive. I would even say that Wittgenstein himself did not really understand the truth he had found.

Actually, his tractatus logico-philosophicus can be read as logical skeleton of the (visible resp. physical) Universe. It is not simply symbolic, it has a real physical content. To give an example: Wittgenstein considered CONTRADICTION explicitly as the limiting case of the universe. And I think, he was right.

But the key to this far-reaching insight is just that thing which made him silent and which is still not issue of systematic scientific inquiry. Platon called it the ONE. It is commonly defined as an omnipresent and invisible ground of all that exists (i.e. the visible resp. observable Universe).

This thing can indeed be investigated scientifically. Clearly not in the direct way. Something that is truly invisible, is in principle unattainable by scientific method. But if we turn around our usual perspective, this task can be done. Instead of looking at the One itself we have to look at the Universe asking ourselves: How must it look like if its most fundamental branch is really invisible?

This question is (!) accessible to scientific method - and it could indeed be answered, because the property of INVISIBILITY turned out to be a physically highly restrictive condition with respect to the visible Universe. It implied f.e. a specific set of boundary conditions. And just these boundary conditions (R = 0, R = oo) are intrinsically representing a CONTRADICTION.

There is a simple reason why the Universe is logically limited by a contradiction: By being limited in this way it can make use of all possibilities that logic allows at all. In other words: The Universe can make use of its full inner potential, because it is only limited by logic itself.

I am convinced, Wittgenstein has felt this truth - at least intuitively.

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is

and

was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have

of points. After it anyone give you

of points so you have

of points and

is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have

of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:

or

or

In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points

then the participant`s rating

was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.